RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

by K.Siladass

Prior to 31.8.1957 there were no incidents involving forceful entry into places of worship of other faiths or breaking of idols found there. The Penal Code took care of any offence against any religion.

Today, we have a written constitution guaranteeing us freedom of worship, freedom of speech and other rights,grouped together as fundamental rights; yet, the intolerant behaviour of some followed by attacks on minorities and their respective faiths is shocking.

The change in the mindset of a group which undermines racial and religious harmony is too pronounced, and which in fact challenges the reasons of the majority.

Causing damage to places of worship, forcibly entering them and destroying statues and other things found there would not in any way foster religious harmony. Sacrileges of places of worship were unheard of during the pre-Merdeka era. How did this change come about? Have we made any attempt to find out the real cause? I doubt.

I am inclined to believe that there could be little Napoleons sitting in the Ivory Tower dishing out irrational views, and who would give explanations inconsistent with the guaranteed fundamental rights.

Presently, from kindergarten to higher level of schooling, we are accustomed to witnessing the extolling of virtues and supremacy of one religion and picking faults with all other faiths: besides, there is also the culture of belittling of other religions. Is this the trend that should be encouraged and sustained?If so, the venom of hatred that is infected into the minds of the innocent young ones is alone sufficient to destroy everything that is good in this country, and that will eventually shatter the dreams of beautiful Malaysia forever.

The Johore incident of the temple destruction, followed by the Deputy Prime Minister’s call to respect all religions, calls for closer scrutiny of the current religious and racial intolerance. The temple incidents may have varied nuance: but, what is in issue is the manner in which it was done. Whoever did it could have exercised a modicum of reasonableness and could have pursued a peaceful course. The Deputy Prime Minister’s call is a correct call and timely.

It must be drilled into the mind of everyone that all religions in this country will exist as they did centuries ago. No one can deny that. The constitution protects all religions. If we can understand this constitutional position, then, we can say that the existence of different thoughts and different religious philosophy cannot be defeated.I am not saying that you should accept my religious precepts but I would say respect my liberty to worship the way I want and the way I have grown up that is the understanding we need to foster and instill.

The system of education must begin by respecting other religions; big or small, and that education must start at kindergarten level and sow the seed of understanding in the young minds. If we do that we will have fair and rational minded people: Malaysians.

When there was no constitutional guaranties or freedom worship there was deep-seated understanding; today, we have constitutional protection to freedom of worship yet there is no security.

CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SARAWAKIANS (SABAHANS?)

ERODED

by K.Siladass

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has assured Sarawakians that their rights which had been eroded over the years could be discussed; or to use the language so reported:"No problem discussing with the Sarawak government the devolution of power and returning all constitutional rights that were eroded." (Sunday Star, 24 December 2016). This is clear admission that there had been erosion of constitutional rights of the Sarawakians. What about the Sabahans?

In willing, or assuring, to discuss the devolution of power and returning the constitutional rights, Najib has imposed two conditions: firstly, there should be no talk of secession. Secondly, the people must support the Barisan Nasional.

First of all, the straight-forward admission that there had been erosion of constitutional rights would call for the return of those rights without any condition. Restoring their constitutional rights should not be subjected to any conditions. It is their rights, and the erosion was unconstitutional and no court of law would endorse such a blatant, and admitted, infringement.

If the Sarawakians are talking about secession, the question is: is it unique? The Johore Royal House too has sounded that secession might be a choice for the Stateto consider although never pursued. Najib has never addressed Johor secession issue at all. Secession may not be right answer to solve every or any problem that might arise between the State and the Federal Government or between states. But, the situation in Sarawak is different: in the sense there is a clear admission that their constitutional rights had been eroded; which means their rights should be returned, restored unconditionally.

The next condition Najib brazenly puts is that the people must support the Barisan Nasional. What has the restoration of constitutional rights got to do with supporting Barisan Nasional?

Is it Najib’s stand that if Sarawakians’ do not support BN, the eroded constitutional rights will not be returned. On the other hand, is he just telling the Sarawakians or the whole of Malaysia that wherever constitutional rights had been denied or eroded, they will be restored provided the Malaysian people support BN? Both questions need clear answer.Both conditions are fraught with political gimmicks. And Malaysians are accustomed to such strange antics.

This was written soon after The Star carried the story, but was lost. Now returned and shared.